Reservoir Description From Seismic Lithologic Modeling: Part 2--Substantiation by Reservoir Simulation

Reservoir Description From Seismic Lithologic Modeling: Part 2--Substantiation by Reservoir Simulation M. de Buyl; M. de Buyl Western Geophysical, Div. of Western Atlas Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar S. Ullah; S. Ullah Core Laboratories Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar T. Guidish T. Guidish Western Geophysical, Div. of Western Atlas Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, September 1987. Paper Number: SPE-16781-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/16781-MS Published: September 27 1987 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation de Buyl, M., Ullah, S., and T. Guidish. "Reservoir Description From Seismic Lithologic Modeling: Part 2--Substantiation by Reservoir Simulation." Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, September 1987. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/16781-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search AbstractTwo independently derived reservoir models of a stratigraphically complex oil field in Alberta, Canada, were used as the bases for reservoir simulation and history-matching. This study is an attempt to compare the applicability of each method for obtaining a reliable description of the reservoir.As discussed in paper SPE 15505, the first reservoir model was based on log and core data from six producing and two dry wells drilled within a portion of the field on which a 3-D seismic survey had been acquired; the second reservoir model was developed by supplementing well data with petrophysical parameters derived from seismic lithologic modeling of the 3-D seismic reflection data.Using structure and net porosity-thickness models developed by these two approaches at two different stages of the field development drilling, history-match calculations of water cut were made on each model using the limited reservoir production and pressure history available to date. The results suggest that the seismically enhanced reservoir model produces a more accurate simulation of the observed performance than that achieved with a "conventional" reservoir model based solely on well control. This observation is particularly true at earlier stages of development drilling when inadequate reservoir descriptions can be produced based on limited well control. This study supports the potential technical benefit of using 3-D seismic data to obtain an improved reservoir description and thereby, lead to improved design of field development and operational programs.IntroductionReservoir description generally involves spatial interpolation, between borehole locations, of both the geological and petrophysical properties across a field. This interpolation is often based on data from only a few wells, with portions of the reservoir inadequately described. The incorporation of seismic information into the reservoir description provides a degree of structural, stratigraphic, and petrophysical detail that cannot be obtained from well data alone. Seismic, in particular, can add much additional information near the reservoir limits and in poorly controlled portions of the field where the reservoir geology may change unexpectedly. Seismically enhanced geological description of the pay zone increases confidence in and improves the modeling of the reservoir. This approach, in turn, should allow a better history match of well and reservoir performance, provide more accurate predictions of future performance, and enable more sound development and economic decisions.MethodologyHere, we describe and compare the simulation results obtained by using two reservoir descriptions of an oil field in the Taber-Turin area of Alberta, Canada. The first model was based solely on available well control while the second model was enhanced by seismic information obtained through a seismic lithologic modeling approach as described in an earlier paper (de Buyl et al, 1986). Furthermore, each of the two models was developed at two different stages of the field development. Thus, four separate reservoir simulations were conducted. At Stage I, the two models were derived without the benefit of data from two recent wells (I and J). At Stage II both seismic and well models were adjusted by incorporating data from Wells I and J. Other information required in the simulations, such as the water saturation distribution relationship, relative permeabilities and the location and amount of communication with the underlying aquifer, was the same for all four models.At Stage I, data from eight wells located within the confines of the 3-D survey along with data from two wells located outside the 3-D survey boundary, were used for the initial reservoir description.P. 399^ Keywords: communication, hydrocarbon-thickness map, well control, seismic lithologic modeling, reservoir description, alberta, history match, reservoir model, permeability, modeling & simulation Subjects: Reservoir Characterization, Seismic processing and interpretation This content is only available via PDF. 1987. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.